Tom Gresham tweeted that Wounded Warriors turned down a spot on Gun Talk because they don't deal with companies involved with firearms. Doesn't the NRA work with the wounded warriors project? Anyone involved with this project on the forum please chime in. I'd like to know where they stand and if this is true what other groups are out there to help wounded veterans?

No. Wounded Warriors doesn't want to have anything to do with firearms.

Walter

November 7, 2012, 10:18 PM

No. Wounded Warriors doesn't want to have anything to do with firearms.
I don't know about that, as they apparently sponsor hunts for Wounded Warriors.
http://www.stripes.com/news/wounded-warriors-honored-with-hunting-1.193087?localLinksEnabled=false

I wish they had had something like this when I came back from Vietnam.

Walter

Double Naught Spy

November 7, 2012, 10:35 PM

The NRA does work with wounded warriors, but I don't immediately see where they are working with the Wounded Warrior Project, though they do work with Project Enduring Pride for wounded warriors.

StrutStopper

November 7, 2012, 10:35 PM

A friend at work is a wounded warrior. He was telling me about a pheasant hunt that he was just on sponsored by the program.

sherman123

November 7, 2012, 11:41 PM

I donated $5 to Wounded Warriors at a gun show for a chance to win a S&W 500 Magnum being raffled off.

GRIZ22

November 7, 2012, 11:51 PM

My club has an annual event where the Wounded Warriors come in for a shoot.

Cal-gun Fan

November 7, 2012, 11:52 PM

Tom Gresham tweeted that Wounded Warriors turned down a spot on Gun Talk because they don't deal with companies involved with firearms. Doesn't the NRA work with the wounded warriors project? Anyone involved with this project on the forum please chime in. I'd like to know where they stand and if this is true what other groups are out there to help wounded veterans?
I can think of legitimate reasons they wouldn't want to. PTSD problems, for one of them. There is more to life than guns, gentlemen :)

psyopspec

November 8, 2012, 09:06 AM

The father of an NCO I served with hosts hunts for wounded warriors on his ranch. They get connected through WWP. This was as of early 2012, and I have no reason to doubt it.

I can think of legitimate reasons they wouldn't want to.

We should determine what the policy is before deciding what to think about it. In some cases you're most certainly right. In others, the shooting sports can be an "anti-drug;" that is, a reason to get out of the house, something to put the focus into, a social event where veterans can be welcomed, etc.

You are right, Tim.
http://www.thetacticalwire.com/story/260855 $50k from Kahr.

The sole claim here is from Tom Gresham's tweet after they turned him down. I wonder if they didn't turn him down for some other reason.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Guntalk

Tim the student

November 9, 2012, 01:13 PM

I'm friends with a guy that got to go to Perry as part of a wounded vets program. I thought it was Wounded Warriors. I'm going to see him later today, I'll try to remember to ask him.

mr.scott

November 9, 2012, 06:36 PM

I can think of legitimate reasons they wouldn't want to. PTSD problems, for one of them. There is more to life than guns, gentlemen

What?

ClickClickD'oh

November 9, 2012, 06:45 PM

We do WWP hunts on our ranch... so, uh...

ApacheCoTodd

November 9, 2012, 07:32 PM

'Bout the only thing I hold in less regard than "tweets" & FB postings as pertains to my forming an opinion are the repeating of unsupported tweets.

Now folk can go about saying in their gunshow authoritative way that they "heard" WW is antigun.

vernon

November 10, 2012, 07:01 PM

Straight from their website:

http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/general-wwp-faqs.aspx

Are there any fundraisers WWP does not support?

WWP fundraisers can not be sexual, political or religious in nature, and cannot be partnered with alcohol brands or the exchange of firearms. This messaging conflicts with our mind, body, and spirit approach to programs. As everyone is aware, alcohol and substance abuse have been a significant problem with segments of the Wounded Warrior population, often with deadly consequences. WWP would not be honoring and empowering Wounded Warriors if the warrior population perceived partnerships with these types of events as encouraging the use of products that contribute to that problem.

ApacheCoTodd

November 10, 2012, 09:12 PM

".... exchange of firearms." What an interesting turn of phrase.

I kinda read it as fundraisers not taking in firearms as prizes in a raffle sort of scenario more than a "...they don't deal with companies involved with firearms."

But that's just interpretation on my part. I wonder if say, Colt were to offer a WWF AR for sale with proceeds going to WWF in the form of cash - whether or not they'd turn it down or even allow the connection in manufacturing and marketing to begin with.

It'd be sad if they had a pat "NO FIREARMS!" policy across the board but then I've long since ceased to be surprised by the actions of the folk who generally, naturally take over "foundations" and charitable or otherwise "trusts".

ArfinGreebly

November 11, 2012, 03:32 PM

So . . .

Why, exactly, would any pro-gun organization decline to get free time on a show like GunTalk?

He had a fifteen minute segment with HAVA today, covering their activities in rehabilitating wounded vets.

Why on earth would WWP turn down that kind of air time?

Tom's show isn't even vaguely radical. Moreover, today's show is the Veterans' Day Special edition. You would think WWP would be falling all over themselves for that.

I don't get it.

we are not amused

November 11, 2012, 03:52 PM

I can think of legitimate reasons they wouldn't want to. PTSD problems, for one of them. There is more to life than guns, gentlemen :)
What?

Cosmoline

November 11, 2012, 06:05 PM

I've heard "PTSD" blamed for everything from mass murders to low job figures. I wonder how many people have actually taken to the time to look up the actual diagnosis:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001923/

It has nothing to do with mass murders or spouse shootings. And it isn't specific to combat. It can be linked to suicide via depression. But a very sizable chunk of the American population has been depressed. And how hard is it to commit suicide? You find a bridge or a body of water. And oddly I see nothing in their FAQ about no events near bridges. By adopting the anti-gun stance, WWP is buying into and supporting the popular notion that vets all have PTSD and that PTSD is going to make them shoot people or themselves. Which is rubbish. And actually helps to smear the reputation of wounded vets and make them into children/invalids rather than men and women. I'm always leery of these outfits, since they have a direct interest in ensuring that the people they treat remain dependent on them to ensure donations keep coming. If you get straightened out and don't need them, they become irrelevant. So anything that helps brand vets with a mark of Cain is great for them.

I hope they change their policy. It sounds like some of their people have been ignoring it already in organizing hunts and such.

hso

November 11, 2012, 11:05 PM

AG,

Might be because they don't need it. They get a lot of coverage from media already.

Also, they're not pro-gun. They're pro wounded service member.
Just like THR, they have one issue to focus on and they don't divert from it.

They also probably don't have anything to do with "gun exchanges" (raffles, give aways, etc.) for the same reason we don't (and we're certainly pro-gun around here).

TheJ

November 12, 2012, 10:25 AM

I saw a tweet from Tom Gresham last week and started looking into this. I emailed them and sen them a message on facebook. I only received an automated response.

Tom Gresham actually spoke at some length about this on his national radio show (http://guntalk.libsyn.com/guntalk-2012-11-11-part-a) yesterday too. He said they will take money from anyone.. but they will not partner with or appear to in any way to associate with firearm companies or firearms media. Apparently, firearm people and companies are undesirable and they don't want to be portrayed as political.

Of course in their attempt to "not be political" they are anything but by showing obvious bigotry towards those who are firm believers in the protection of one of our most basic fundamental civil rights. They are in effect taking a anti-civil rights position.

I am sure they have done and will continue to do some very very fine things for our wounded veterans and I applaud them for that. However, just like if they were to not accept partnerships to help from pro first amendment organizations or other pro civil rights organizations, I find their stand offensive.

I certainly will no longer be giving any money to them. There are plenty of other less bigoted organizations out there to help our wounded veterans.
HAVA (http://www.honoredveterans.org/) or Honored American Veterans Afield, for example.

hso

November 12, 2012, 10:26 AM

It isn't their cause.

The world isn't divided into pro and anti gun and if we act like it is we appear to be fanatics, and no one likes fanatics except other fanatics (on each end of the spectrum).

I think by making this an issue, Gresham is hurting RKBA supporters by making us look like WE as a community are attacking WWP for not declaring for us. That is something that will turn people off and even some against us (Do ya think all the folks with wounded vets for friends and family will appreciate us hating on WWP?) especially on/around Veteran's Day.

TheJ

November 12, 2012, 10:29 AM

It isn't their cause but by choosing to not associate or accept help publicly with firearms groups/media they are in effect taking a side... They are taking an anti civil rights position.

They specifically state that firearms (and liquor) conflict with their "mind, body, spirit" approach. They are absolutely free to take this bigoted position but others (like me) are absolutely free to chose to support other groups that will not be so bigoted.

I do not lump firearms in with liquor lol

TheJ

November 12, 2012, 10:43 AM

I wonder if people would also feel it was not a big deal if they said they would not publicly accept help from groups/companies/media because those groups were promoting free speech or anti-segregation.

SSN Vet

November 12, 2012, 10:56 AM

sounds like a Zumbo moment coming on....

the attitudes expressed by The WWP certainly sound like bigoted anti rhetoric to my ears.

too bad... it will only make pro 2A guys look like they are anti-vet.

Double Naught Spy

November 12, 2012, 11:40 AM

Tom's show isn't even vaguely radical.

That would depend on your perspective. Not all wounded warrior folks are pro gun.

TheJ

November 12, 2012, 12:46 PM

But do they have to be anti gun?

basicblur

November 12, 2012, 12:51 PM

sounds like a Zumbo moment coming on....
Yes it does!

Wait...a Zumbo moment for whom? :confused:

vito

November 12, 2012, 01:59 PM

Not to sound petty, but after being a sponsor for the Wounded Warrior Project for a few years, meaning I have sent them at least several hundred dollars, I would hope that they are not really some anti-gun, i.e., anti-2nd Amendment organization. Years ago when Sturm Ruger excluded medical coverage for its employees if they suffered a motorcycle accident I vowed to stop buying any Ruger product. When they reversed their position on this medical insurance exclusion, under great pressure from the Americam Motorcyclist Association and riders in general, I again became a customer for them. I'm sure many wounded veterans enjoy hunting, and/or value the owning of a firearm for personal and family protection, and if the WWP treated guns in general negatively I would have to reconsider my ongoing support to that particular organization. BTW, I bet more wounded servicemen and women were wounded/disabled by IED's than by guns.

Kingofthehill

November 12, 2012, 02:41 PM

Heard this at HAVA last weekend and just heard about it this morning on the Tom Gresham podcast.

I am totally blown away and researching it for my own peace of mind but i have pulled my donations that were on an automatically monthly donation cycle. Also sent them an Email along with WHY i have pulled my donations and will not return until they repeal their decision to associate with firearms related companies.

Simply unreal how they are against probably their largest sector of donations! The Firearms world. I thought Khar arms donated something like $50,000 a month ago or something? How dare they just keep accepting the money without being "Associated" with us?

JOe

Apachedriver

November 12, 2012, 04:37 PM

So, if an organization wants to remain apolitical in order to advance its apolitical cause, it's automatically supporting the other side of the issue.

This is all about supporting the Wounded Vets, not about who likes guns or not. Not to mention, they accept all sorts of firearms-related activities already for those WOUNDED VETS.

It's all about supporting an organization that supports WOUNDED VETS, people that have sacrificed for a greater cause than themselves. It's not about using that support or those WOUNDED VETS to further a political stance.

I'm pro-2A, pro-Bill of Rights for that matter, all the way. But I won't support an organization or company that places self-centered stipulations on allowing its support to those that have sacrificed of themselves.

What I'm seeing from some of you is screw the organization, and in turn the WOUNDED VETS, for not openly giving you what you want from them.

They chose to avoid getting typecast into a political stance. So what??

If Mr. Gresham got his feathers ruffled, or his ego bruised, because they weren't chomping at the bit for his show, then he can go suck an egg.

Cosmoline

November 12, 2012, 06:16 PM

There's a critical difference between staying apolitical and simply refusing to have any connection with anything firearm-related. You can stay apolitical and still organize hunts, go on various talk shows and coordinate funding drives with gun makers or clubs.

With their apparent position refusing to have anything to do with anything gun related, they are in fact taking a strong political position. When they justify this position by endorsing the anti-gun mantra that firearms lead to suicide, and indeed implying that wounded vets are DANGEROUS, then I think they've gone over the edge completely into partisan hackery.

I hope that WWP changes its position on this. A simple google search shows that the outfit has had many contacts with guns in the past, which makes sense. If they think they're going to get a lot of support for the vets on the anti-gun left, I think they're nuts. And if they think there's major damage associating with us vermin, I'm afraid the damage has already been done!

http://www.historicalarmory.com/national-editions/wounded-warrior.pdf

basicblur

November 12, 2012, 07:06 PM

If Mr. Gresham got his feathers ruffled, or his ego bruised, because they weren't chomping at the bit for his show, then he can go suck an egg.
Hmmmm....sounds like mebbe it isn't Mr. Gresham whose feathers are ruffled!

I listen to his podcast every week - I think his stance (after being completely dumbfounded) was (and I'm paraphrasing a bit), that's fine...if you don't want to associate with me, message received and understood....

TheJ

November 12, 2012, 07:24 PM

...What I'm seeing from some of you is screw the organization, and in turn the WOUNDED VETS, for not openly giving you what you want from them...

WWP is not the only way to support wounded veterans. There are many ways and other organizations to support vets that do not take an anti-firearm position.

Apachedriver

November 12, 2012, 09:34 PM

Cosmoline - There's a critical difference between staying apolitical and simply refusing to have any connection with anything firearm-related.

As far as I've read, WWP refused the invite to Tom Gresham's show, not to anything else you've listed regarding hunts and such. And the only source i've seen as to what they said is Twitter:

Tom Gresham @Guntalk 5d
Wounded Warriors Project just reconfirmed they don't do anything with media or companies involved with firearms.

That's hardly taking an anti-gun stance.

You can stay apolitical and still organize hunts, go on various talk shows and coordinate funding drives with gun makers or clubs.

I agree but then again, those with whom you keep company with is how you're judged. I'm guessing that the libs donate as well and why offend them with a falsely assumed perception of being a right-wing pro-gun organization.

With their apparent position refusing to have anything to do with anything gun related, they are in fact taking a strong political position. When they justify this position by endorsing the anti-gun mantra that firearms lead to suicide, and indeed implying that wounded vets are DANGEROUS, then I think they've gone over the edge completely into partisan hackery.

Holy Shnikees!!...How did you arrive at that conclusion? I'm not seeing it. The only quote I've seen is Mr. Gresham's on Twitter. If you have more on that, I'd surely like to know. Those are serious implications against WWP and they would lose my support as well.

And if they think there's major damage associating with us vermin, I'm afraid the damage has already been done!

Are you a firearm company? Or any form of media? If not, then you're entirely personalizing their choice to not go on a gun show. That's all they have turned down...a Gun-Related Media venue...they didn't turn you down.

BTW, thanks for that link to the rifle. I like it. I'll have to look into that further.

I listen to his podcast every week - I think his stance (after being completely dumbfounded) was (and I'm paraphrasing a bit), that's fine...if you don't want to associate with me, message received and understood....

His feathers were ruffled otherwise he wouldn't have even bothered to mention that he had a guest request turned down. He tweeted it and spoke about it on his show. It smacks of "the nerve of them not wanting to associated with me." Typical media response.

And yes, my feathers got ruffled too. Well, my one feather anyways...I'm not a big man in the gun business. But I do associate with gun related activities and visit gun stores often.

WWP is not the only way to support wounded veterans. There are many ways and other organizations to support vets that do not take an anti-firearm position.

I agree but I'm must be missing something here. Where did this conclusion of an anti-firearm/anti-2A position come from??

Let me in on it and I'll pull me CFC support for WWP as well.

Tim the student

November 12, 2012, 10:35 PM

I checked with my buddy about his experiences with WW.

Turns out he goes to Perry with M1s For Vets (which is a great organization, IMO, and in his experiences).

25cschaefer

November 12, 2012, 10:41 PM

I have seen several WWP gun raffles in Montana; maybe it was just rouge fundraisers.

jhvaughan2

November 12, 2012, 11:49 PM

Why is not supporting one side, considered supporting the other.
We need not vilify those who are not "with us"
We need to accept most people do not take a position in this "argument"

Tom Gresham

November 13, 2012, 12:15 PM

Hi, Guys,

Here's how this came down.

We invited the WWP to be on our Veteran's Day show. They declined, saying they don't do events or media appearances with anything relating to guns.

I was pretty surprised. Like most everyone else, I knew they took money from gun companies, etc. So, I wrote them back and asked them to confirm this policy. The PR director confirmed it.

My take is that they will accept our money, but they don't want to be seen with us. Each person will have to make of that what he or she will.

One person offered that the WWP had gone "mainstream," and that they now don't want to be associated with the extremists. Maybe.

I just know that after decades of watching gun owners being marginalized, demonized, and basically labeled as "undesirables," I'm able to recognize an outfit which doesn't want to be associated with "those people."

Each person can make his or her own call, but it's good to make an informed decision.

The entire email exchange is on our Facebook page. Each person can read it and decide if I "got my feathers ruffled."

I really don't care if WWP comes on the radio show. We have plenty of guests and callers. I do have a problem with their policy regarding firearms, and I don't understand how they can have that policy while participating (?) in fundraising shoots. Something just doesn't add up.

WWP fundraisers can not be sexual, political or religious in nature, and cannot be partnered with alcohol brands or the exchange of firearms. This messaging conflicts with our mind, body, and spirit approach to programs. As everyone is aware, alcohol and substance abuse have been a significant problem with segments of the Wounded Warrior population, often with deadly consequences. WWP would not be honoring and empowering Wounded Warriors if the warrior population perceived partnerships with these types of events as encouraging the use of products that contribute to that problem.

http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/general-wwp-faqs.aspx

Hopefully this is a misunderstanding and will be cleared up.

Formula94

November 13, 2012, 02:32 PM

I can think of legitimate reasons they wouldn't want to. PTSD problems, for one of them. There is more to life than guns, gentlemen
One of the primary treatments for PTSD is CBT with prolonged exposure therapy. Exposure is exactly that...exposure to stimuli that generate a negative response in order to correct that cognitive malfunction.

12131

November 13, 2012, 02:46 PM

Direct quote by Leslie Coleman of WWP, from Tom Gresham's email exchange:
WWP does not co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds from companies in which the product or message is sexual, political or religious in nature, or from alcohol or firearms companies.
When did this start? I know BCM is a corporate sponsor of the WWP. Or maybe it no longer is, because the prominent WWP display is no longer on its website? Hmmm. Time to donate my money elsewhere.

HorseSoldier

November 13, 2012, 05:44 PM

One of the primary treatments for PTSD is CBT with prolonged exposure therapy. Exposure is exactly that...exposure to stimuli that generate a negative response in order to correct that cognitive malfunction.

Wounded Warrior Program supports wounded veterans, it doesn't provide them medical or behavioral health treatment. So whether or not they are interested in gun raffles or whatever else they mean with "exchange of firearms" is unrelated to anyone's treatment for PTSD.

My suspicion is that the exchange of firearms issue is that WWP has PR and/or liability concerns about that. Veterans, and especially wounded warriors, as a population are at elevated risk for suicide, PTSD related or otherwise. (Which is not to say that ever veteran out there is a ticking timebomb for self-harm, before anyone reads too much into that statement.) Nobody wants to be the guy or organization that provided a firearm as a prize or giveaway to someone who then kills themselves with it -- which is an unlikely chain of events, but the numbers favor it more among veterans/wounded warriors than among the population as a whole.

I spent July-October this year as a patient in the WTB at Walter Reed and can tell you from firsthand observation that this is pretty much inline with current military policies concerning wounded warriors who are deemed at higher risk for suicide. Besides making tons of mental health resources available to at-risk personnel, the WTBs (or at least the one at WR) can get pretty invasive and restrictive in their monitoring of those personnel. Some of the other guys I was with in the WTB were restricted to a point where in civilian society people might throw around terms like "house arrest." I don't know that it did anything to help those guys' mental state being under those conditions, but the emphasis was preventing suicides even if it meant curtailing freedoms.

Slugnutty

November 13, 2012, 06:51 PM

I've been following closely several exchanges on both Thunder Ranch and Tom Gresham's Gun Talk pages on FB about the Wounded Warrior Project. It seems that after much digging around, Mr. Gresham had indeed discovered the the WWP has a policy in place that deems it against their values to do business or participate with any entity involving firearms and the related industry.

The hypocritical thing is that WWP routinely accepts donations from the firearms industry, such a very large recent donation from Khar Arms......also, WWP only actually gives about 15% of every dollar donated to use for what it should be used for.

After Sunday's show, we've gotten many emails about Tom's remarks after WWP declined an interview request on Gun Talk Radio because it's a firearms-related show. We've also seen the forums that are suggesting many things that are not true. So, I'm going to lay it all out right here.
We thought it would be great to book the WWP on the Veteran's Day show to promote the organization, so I contacted them. I was flabbergasted when their PR contact, Leslie, sent me an email saying they could not participate because our show dealt with firearms. Knowing that WWP has a booth at SHOT show and various gun shows across the US, takes wounded warriors on hunts and range days, raffles guns and accessories as fundraisers, etc., their policy didn't make much sense. I forwarded the email on to Tom to get his take.
-Sarah

The following is the complete email exchange:
====================
Hello, Leslie:
Sarah forwarded me your email after I asked her to invite the Wounded Warriors Project to join me on "Tom Gresham's Gun Talk" radio show.

I'm stunned at your email saying that the WWP doesn't participate in an interview or activity related to firearms. Inasmuch as there are 90 million gun owners and most of them support wounded veterans, I think they would be shocked to hear that they are, by way of their hobbies, somehow not worthy of helping with the Wounded Warriors Project.

Does your policy apply also to police agencies and the military, since they are "related to firearms?"

I'm hoping that we have misunderstood your email. Can you confirm that it is, in fact, an official policy of the Wounded Warriors Project to not do interviews with or participate in any activity related to firearms?

Thank you.
Tom Gresham

============

Good afternoon --

While we appreciate your interest in Wounded Warrior Project® (WWP) you are correct that we decline the media opportunity.

Please note the following notice that appears on our website which also applies to WWP public awareness policy and inquiries from media outlets:
http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/additional-opportunities.aspx

WWP does not co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds from companies in which the product or message is sexual, political or religious in nature, or from alcohol or firearms companies.

====================
Thanks for confirming that, Leslie. It was a simple opportunity to promote the WWP on a national program in an effort to send donations your way.
I'll pass along the info that you don't want or need the help of America's gun owners.

Best regards,
Tom Gresham

=====================

Good morning --
This policy is not a judgment on those who own and use firearms – clearly every member of our armed forces has been trained in the use of firearms and then called on to use them in the course of their service to this country.

Our position regarding firearms and alcohol is in response to the struggles that many injured service members face with substance abuse and suicide and the roles those items often play in those issues.

Thank you.
LESLIE A. COLEMAN
public relations director

=============================

Hello, Leslie:

Thank you for that explanation.

I do think -- and I'm being as kind as possible -- that it's the nuttiest thing I've heard in years. Suicides are not linked to firearms. Japan has a much higher rate of suicide than does the U.S., and they have essentially no firearms. Suicide is a serious issue irrespective of the methodology used.

This explanation doesn't pass even the most simple "does this make sense" test.

Your policy does, in fact, brand firearms and the companies which make them as undesirables, and by association, you are saying that those who own and use firearms for recreation, hunting, self protection, and other safe and legal uses are to be avoided.

It's certainly your option to ostracize the firearms industry, the 90 million gun owners in America, and the media which support firearms safety training.

At this point, I feel an obligation to make sure the millions who listen to my radio show and watch my two national television series know about your policy.

I cannot fully express how much I feel you are doing a disservice to our wounded veterans, and how disappointed I am to discover this bias at the Wounded Warriors Project.

Official: Thunder Ranch will no longer be doing any fundraising for Wounded Warrior. This due to the main reason is they will do not want support from the guns period because guns are used by our military to kill themselves. What do they save themselves with? Nerf guns? Also the fact that very little of our money is actually getting to the families that need them. We will find charities in the coming months to help us all give but for now all money raised with our current DVD sale will go to our Seal team family... the Reece Petersen Trust fund. Thank you as always for your support. We will continue to do the best job we can to put as much money as we can to helping our military. Clint and Heidi

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Thunder-Ranch/120548841302589

Here is a site that has info and ratings on different charities:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=531

Apachedriver

November 13, 2012, 09:05 PM

I'm glad Mr. Gresham got involved in this discussion. Comments on what actually transpired are preferable as opposed to forum reactions based on a single tweet.

As a current service member, WWP's initial actions were in line with how the Army approaches these things. They don't like to be associated or mistaken as supporting specific brands. It's always been a policy to require the removal brand names and their markings from our personal equipment.

However, I have to agree that based on the info provided, it does seem that WWP is moving away from simple brand disassociation and into a more issue-based decision to disassociate.

For myself, I intend to watch this ideology they are moving towards and, if needed, to "spend my money elsewhere." My concern is always foremost for my wounded brothers.

I'll add that presently, there is indeed a huge issue going on in the military in regards to suicides. It's larger than I have ever seen in my almost 26 years of service and it's frustrating the leadership as they're unable to "crack the nut", NO PUN INTENDED. Firearms ARE increasingly being used, especially by the younger service members.

Of course the easy answer is always ban everything. But in this case, that's not the solution either so we'll have to see where it goes. I will say, this is the largest concerted effort the Army has ever put forth on one issue and of that I'm glad.

BTW, Mr. Gresham, I'll take my egg back. Thanks.

Yoda

November 13, 2012, 10:01 PM

I just heard an extended interview with a WWP representative on tonight's (Tuesday's) "NRA News" show.

Curious...

- - - Yoda

kyhuntsman94

November 14, 2012, 10:22 AM

This seems all quirky to me. They distance theirselves from gun companies and guns in general, but are more than willing to accept donations from anyone regardless of their business. Actually, hypocritical is the word that I am lookiing for. I support the WWP, or at least I did, now I will have to rethink my stand on this. I would love to heard from someone within the organization speak on this.

The other thing that bothers me almost as much as this is the quote above that only 15% of every dollar goes to support a wounded veteren. I do not have a lot of expendable income, but I do tithe to my church regularly as well as reputable NPOs. I will have to do some research to verify that 15% number. That seems way ridiculous to me.

Another thought to cionsider - I wonder if they are having internal squabbles over this policy?

Dave Workman

November 14, 2012, 10:26 AM

TheJ wrote:
It isn't their cause but by choosing to not associate or accept help publicly with firearms groups/media they are in effect taking a side... They are taking an anti civil rights position.

They specifically state that firearms (and liquor) conflict with their "mind, body, spirit" approach. They are absolutely free to take this bigoted position but others (like me) are absolutely free to chose to support other groups that will not be so bigoted.

You could add that it is your right, and Gresham's, to make this known to anyone who will listen. Tom is a good friend of mine. I've hosted his show a couple of times. He's no crank, he's not an extremist.

I think this simply stunned him and he decided to talk about it. That's what he does for a living...talk about stuff related to firearms. And frankly, I think we have a right to know this stuff. Not that we need to boycott WW or anything like that, but we have a right to know "how the management thinks."

This tenor might be construed as tainting vets as being somehow not a good mix with firearms. Gimme a break. Millions of vets came home from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I...they hunt, target shoot, work in LE sometimes, own firearms for personal protection and family protection....and they have been good neighbors, friends and even participate here and on other forums.

Arfin says he doesn't get it. I believe I do... "Hoplophobia" might come into play here.

homatok

November 14, 2012, 12:16 PM

I do not have a dog in this fight but I feel compeled to say that any organization that will take dollar donations (no questions asked) but has a public policy of not associating with anything to do with the basis from which those funds originated is (in my opinion) at the top of the class for being hypocritical!!

Sort of like the animal rights activist that wears leather and eats meat but won't kill thier own chicken and condems those of us that hunt.

basicblur

November 14, 2012, 12:24 PM

Since this little kerfluffle, I've been doing some digging into the finances of The Wounded Warrior Project - it doesn't look pretty...
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12842

wtr100

November 14, 2012, 12:41 PM

I can think of legitimate reasons they wouldn't want to. PTSD problems, for one of them. There is more to life than guns, gentlemen :)
Oh horse crap - sending them my shreded and cancled WWP branded credit card

Cosmoline

November 14, 2012, 12:49 PM

Well put. PTSD is not and has never been a reason for losing your right to keep and bear arms. If the DOD is putting soldiers suffering from it in detention to cover its backside, that's horrible. But there's no reason to tolerate a charity which endorses the approach.

Today the Wounded Warrior Project responded. There's much here that contributes to more head scratching.

http://professionaloutdoormedia.org/node/7384

hso

November 14, 2012, 07:46 PM

Mr. Gresham's explanation tells us that WWP has a huge error in their thinking. Guns are the tool of the suicidal person, not the reason the person is suicidal. Statistics and studies show that firearm may be the preferred method for veterans, but suicidal veterans will do as any other suicidal person, find the means available to end their pain. If guns aren't available then they'll use other means.

The other thing it shows us that tweets don't provide enough information for people to make decisions. It is debatable whether WWP is intentionally being anti, but perpetrating a recognized myth that guns increase the risk of suicide when we know that suicidal people will find the means regardless of what's available perpetuates the myth that the Antis use.

The push to get them to explain their position has resulted in their responding in an unclear and self-contraditory manner as Mr. Gresham indicated above. It is important at this point for WWP to make a clear and unequivocal statement.

There's a lot more going on there than I had thought with an organization simply adopting a neutral position with respect to RKBA. They perpetrate the myth that guns cause suicide, argue they're using hunts to help wounded service members and benefiting from shooting events and then dance around the contradictions.

Apachedriver

November 15, 2012, 12:37 AM

I suppose it's a good thing they responded in some manner at last. I had also emailed them right after my initial posts with a list of questions and concerns, as well as referencing the doubts that were arising here due to their incomplete and unclear stance.

The only answer I received was the automated form reply.

Davek1977

November 15, 2012, 01:37 AM

Either you are pro, anti, or neutral....you can't be some oddball mixture of the three, and that seems to be squarely where WWP seems to fall currently. It seems as though they are more than willing to benefit from guns when its convenient for them to do so, but seemingly put up a public "front" that distances them from the shooting sports and guns in general. The implication that they cannot be associated with guns due to suicide risks and whatnot is flatout insulting to our vets. They are responsible enough to handle a gun on Uncle Sam's time, but suddenly, recreational use will lead to suicides? Is that really the image they want to be putting out there? I respect the mission of the WWP, but certainly have questions as to their stance on things and the hypocrisy it entails.

old fart

November 15, 2012, 07:05 AM

I saw a segment of shooting usa on the outdoor channel a few months ago, they were at a shoot for the wwp. they shot trap and targets, so this is confusing to me.

beatledog7

November 15, 2012, 08:22 AM

WWP runs on donated funds. It's people that make donation decisions, and some people simply do not like guns and will do everything they can to distance themselves and their organization from them.

What do you suppose is the percentage of Americans who will only support organizations that are either in the firearms industry directly or who openly do business with other organizations that are? Pretty small, I'd wager. How about the percentage of Americans who regularly decline to do any sort of business with any organization that they know deals in any way with firearms? Bigger number, I'd bet.

Looks to me like WWP has decided that it would lose fewer potential donors by avoiding open connection with the firearms trade than it will gain by specifically connecting with it. To view its position on accepting donations from the firearms trade as if it is purely a political stance is narrow-minded at best. Although the policy is poorly articulated and apparently somewhat unevenly applied, it sounds like a rationally made business decision, not a political position. There is still a difference, you know.

Which of us would come away unscathed from having our lives deconstructed: our every statement broken down into sound bites, our every move analyzed, all our associations scrutinized? If we as 2A supporters set about to ridicule or vilify anyone who doesn't directly support 2A in the ways we would have them support 2A, are we any different from those who vilify us? No, we must take the high road and be the rational minds in the debate. The leadership of WWP has decided to have this policy, and I respect their right to do so. I also respect everyone's right to donate or not donate as each sees fit. If you want to support wounded vets, try to find an organization with whose policies and actions you are 100% agreement. Good luck.

vito

November 15, 2012, 08:31 AM

Well said beatledog7. I don't expect ideaological purity from the polititians I support, since someone I agree with 80% of the time is not my enemy, and I treat organizations the same way. I've contributed to the American Cancer Society, the Heart Association, the Red Cross, etc. and I would not be surprised if some of these organizations are also anti-gun in some way. The good work being done for the wounded veterans is my focus so I continue to support the WWP.

rbernie

November 15, 2012, 08:34 AM

Which of us would come away unscathed from having our lives deconstructed: our every statement broken down into sound bites, our every move analyzed, all our associations scrutinizedWatching people's actions to see if they are consistent with their words is a necessary part of life, IMO. If they are not, then that dichotomy can create a trust issue.

It is, um, nonlinear for WWF to use the firearms community as a major source of income and assistance and then state that open association with such a polarizing industry is simply not in their best interest.

brnmw

November 15, 2012, 08:40 AM

Well if they are or are not for pro 2nd ammendment policy, I also give every month to "Lone Survivor Foundation" started by Marcus Luttrell based in Houston, Texas. If there is one thing I do know is Marcus Luttrell is "Pro- 2nd Ammendment!" :D

www.lonesurvivorfoundation.org

silversport

November 15, 2012, 09:31 AM

I have been following this for a bit myself...and I find it disturbing...as a LONG time contributor to the WWP since Bill O'Reilly first talked of it many years ago...I won't donate to them any more until I can get an answer from WWP...

Do they not take money from Automobile manufacturers as cars are sometimes used for suicide???...how about drug manufacturers???...swimming pool manufacturers???...when does it end...

WWP can certainly take donations from whomever they lioke and exclude whomever they like...and the real people to be hurt here are the Wounded Warriors...I can find other organizations to give my money to like USA Cares or some others mentioned in this thread...

Bill

hardheart

November 15, 2012, 10:16 AM

I was more than done when I read the response stating that they also did not want to be associated with knives, bows, and swords. The brand simply could not afford to be affixed to something as dangerous as a Leatherman tool or a Case pocket knife. Also, some sort of keepsake like a WWP marked cavalry sword is an obvious choice for gangland executions or a stabbing spree, like has been so prevalent on the news.

I can't stand the demonizing of tools.

basicblur

November 15, 2012, 10:54 AM

I have been following this for a bit myself...and I find it disturbing...as a LONG time contributor to the WWP since Bill O'Reilly first talked of it many years ago...I won't donate to them any more until I can get an answer from WWP...
For myself (and others need to do a little research), this story has gone from WWP's stance on guns etc. and is now a question of exactly how much money donated actually goes to the vets and is not eaten up by exorbitant salaries, marketing, administrative costs, advertising, yadda yadda yadda.

It looks to me like only around 15% of funds actually make it to the vets?

O'Reilly made a big flap years ago about the Red Cross, and how an apparent excessively large percentage of donations was eaten up by 'operating costs', much as it appears WWP is doing - wonder why O'Reilly hasn't done a little research on this before supporting them (you'd think he'd have learned with Red Cross).

WWP is looking more like it was created by a few enterprising folks as a way to pay themselves (and their buddies?) a large salary and provide jobs for themselves - whatever's left will trickle to the vets.

If I'm not mistaken (I'll have to update my research), the Salvation Army was one of the best charities around - their CEO's salary was around 60K/yr (WWP has two folks pulling in over approx 400K/yr from what I understand), and just about all Salvation Army's workers were volunteers. Last time I checked, I think about 90% or more of money taken in actually went towards the folks they were helping.

I realize it's probably apples and oranges, but the bottom line is folks need to research a charity BEFORE giving.

In my research (I'll have to go back and dig deeper), there was an outfit called Wounded Warriors FUND that was more closely tied to the military, and I remember reading on their page that they really didn't care for WWP.

wtr100

November 15, 2012, 02:26 PM

Seems common sense has broken out over at WWP, at least a little

http://www.examiner.com/node/55389381

“We welcome the opportunity to have a warrior on Mr. Gresham’s show to discuss how hunting or events of the like have supported their recovery,” Hay affirmed, reversing the position articulated by the group’s public relations director. “We responded too quickly to his request and should have delved a bit deeper.”

12131

November 15, 2012, 02:35 PM

Seems common sense has broken out over at WWP, at least a little

http://www.examiner.com/node/55389381
My guess is it's only because small time donators like us are starting to drop them like flies. We'll see what the WWP "representative" will respond, when Gresham has a chance to ask face to face about their policy.

CoRoMo

November 15, 2012, 03:06 PM

Tuesday:
This is coming straight from their FAQ:

http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/general-wwp-faqs.aspx
Are there any fundraisers WWP does not support?

WWP fundraisers can not be sexual, political or religious in nature, and cannot be partnered with alcohol brands or the exchange of firearms. This messaging conflicts with our mind, body, and spirit approach to programs. As everyone is aware, alcohol and substance abuse have been a significant problem with segments of the Wounded Warrior population, often with deadly consequences. WWP would not be honoring and empowering Wounded Warriors if the warrior population perceived partnerships with these types of events as encouraging the use of products that contribute to that problem.
Hopefully this is a misunderstanding and will be cleared up.
Today:
19. Are there any fundraisers WWP does not support?

WWP fundraisers cannot be sexual or political in nature and cannot be partnered with alcohol brands.
Guns and God are back in!

SSN Vet

November 15, 2012, 03:39 PM

It looks to me like only around 15% of funds actually make it to the vets?

that's horrible and ineficient...

I don't see why the executives of any "charity" should make a $400K haul.

I guess "charity" is a profitable business to get into.

Wangmuf

November 15, 2012, 04:27 PM

My guess is it's only because small time donators like us are starting to drop them like flies. We'll see what the WWP "representative" will respond, when Gresham has a chance to ask face to face about their policy.
My guess would be something along the lines of, "I have no knowledge of how WWP operates or their ideology, I'm just a wounded vet that they've done fantastic things to help."

TennJed

November 15, 2012, 04:47 PM

Tom thank you for posting the link to the email exchange. It does seem to reflect they associate firearms with suicide which is absurd. I hope they see the light and address the real issues behind suicide. I am 100% behind our vets but I am also ashamed that this orginization would associate a tool as a reason

Tom Gresham

November 15, 2012, 05:25 PM

We just got confirmation -- The CEO of the Wounded Warriors Project will be a guest on "Tom Gresham's Gun Talk" radio show this Sunday.

I suspect the CEO will throw the PR director under the bus, but their own FAQ at the time of her "misstatement" and the fact they made a change is going to be difficult to explain.

The suicide issue will be a challenge as well.

Tom Gresham

November 18, 2012, 11:23 AM

Another change to the WWP web site this week: As was already pointed out, the FAQ) was changed to remove the mention that WWP fundraisers can not be partnered with "the exhange of firearms," and now says: "WWP fundraisers cannot be sexual or political in nature and cannot be partnered with alcohol brands."

The second change I note is subtle, but possibly made so they can include knife makers. This week WWP confirmed to Knife Rights that they will not allow their logo to be used on knives for fundraisers.

From the WWP web site, before last week:

"WWP does not co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds from companies in which the product or message is sexual, political or religious in nature, or from alcohol or firearms companies."

This is the copy as changed last week.

"WWP does not co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds from companies in which the product or message is sexual, political or religious in nature, or from alcohol or weapon companies."

12131

November 19, 2012, 02:38 AM

Tom,
I listened to your Podcast interview with the WWP CEO. I think you did an excellent job of pinning the policy question to him. And sadly, like a politician, the man just gave a BS and convoluted explanation. :banghead:

Flopsweat

November 19, 2012, 05:53 AM

Mr Nardizzi first said that the no interviews thing was a mistake and that they do interviews with gun shows and mentioned that they had done interviews with the NRA in the past as an example. It was when they got to the use of their logo - co-branding in particular - that things got a little iffy. He claimed that this type of marketing is highly regulated and that for each company authorised to use their logo, they needed to have a lawyer, a marketing person and someone to track the use of the logo. This apparently makes it not worth their while to go with smaller companies. He gave bicycle companies as an example of companies with which they no longer co-brand due to low return on investment. But on their web site, they say this:

(http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/additional-opportunities.aspx)
WWP does not co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds from companies in which the product or message is sexual, political or religious in nature, or from alcohol or weapon companies.
As others have mentioned, they have changed "firearm" to "weapon". No mention of bikes though. Now let's play "One of these things is not like the others". Sex, politics, religion, alcohol, weapons, bicycles. Which one is different, and which one does not appear in their statement. Hmm... smell funny? It seems pretty clear to me that firearms (or now weapons) are in the category of "PC" rather than "not feasible".

When Tom asked him if a gun company wanted to donate a portion of a particular sale to WWP and cut a check, he said sure, they'd do that. Could they use the logo? No, and he went back to the requiring lawyers, marketing people and someone to track the use of the logo. So no logo, but they'll take a portion of the proceeds. Wait a minute: "or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds". OK, well that's it for me. Doesn't pass the smell test.

But wait, there's more. After he finished speaking with Mr Nardizzi, Tom spoke with Tracy Della Vecchia of Marine Parents (Marineparents.com). They work with families of members of all branches of service now, not just the Marines, but even more interesting, they were willing to let Gun Talk use their logo. Tom was careful to ask the question the same way he did to Mr Nardizzi.

So my take is that the guy is so full of it that you can smell it over the pretty phrases he uses. Just my take, and you can check out the podcast for yourself at http://traffic.libsyn.com/guntalk/121118guntalkB.mp3.

Droid noob

November 19, 2012, 01:42 PM

Listening to the WWP CEO talk was like listening to a politician lie. His bicycle analogy was awful, because he doesn't have them listed as "no-no's" on his policy. He was dancing for sure. I'm glad Tom asked the hard questions and didn't shy away.

jtischauser

November 19, 2012, 02:06 PM

WWP is dead to me. There are way too many other organizations to donate to to help veterans than that turd.

DammitBoy

November 19, 2012, 02:41 PM

15% going to the wounded warriors is a huge fail. They will not get my money. Plenty of other groups out there to donate to that do good works.

wtr100

November 19, 2012, 03:34 PM

Head honco tried to go on and make nice

http://traffic.libsyn.com/guntalk/121118guntalkA.mp3

started weasling like you can't believe

:(

they're on the excrement list until further notice :banghead:

Templar223

November 19, 2012, 05:09 PM

Tom,

Fabulous job!

http://www.gunssavelife.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/WWPAfire.jpg

http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=3467

Late last week, WWP announced their executive director would appear on Gresham’s show to clarify the WWP position, in addition to offering some weaselese language that they respected everyone’s right to their rights to gun ownership – sorta like President Obama begins his self-description. “I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but…”

Nardizzi, for being so well-paid, utterly fumbled.

He tried to spin his way out of the mess but only managed to spin himself in deeper, offering all sorts of weak excuses why WWP couldn’t partner with gun-related sponsors. He cited sponsorships with cyclists and how WWP had cut back on those sponsorships because of some sort of inferior return on investment.

12131

November 19, 2012, 06:05 PM

But but, don't you see the picture of that gun on our logo? Don't tell me we're anti gun.

Man, how pathetic!

Coop45

November 19, 2012, 06:41 PM

I've read several comments about Vets and ptsd from folks who have no clue about the realities of the problem. The WWF spends 83% of the donations on programs benefitting Wounded Warriors. These troops are not remf, but combat wounded soldiers. The idea is to ease their transition back into civilian life. I suspect that few of you would part with a few bucks to help them anyway.

12131

November 19, 2012, 07:19 PM

I've read several comments about Vets and ptsd from folks who have no clue about the realities of the problem....

I suspect that few of you would part with a few bucks to help them anyway.
How ironic.
You chide folks who "have no clue" about vets and PTSD, and yet, you're suspecting they won't donate their money to help the vets. Do you have a clue about how these folks spent their money?
As said already, there are plenty of other vets organizations out there to be helped. WWP is not the only game in town. I used to be a frequent donor to them. No longer, after all this crap. I choose how to donate my money. You do the same with yours.

ArfinGreebly

November 19, 2012, 07:41 PM

I see I was not the only one who heard "corporate weasel speak" from the CEO.

Trying to pull the wool over Tom's eyes regarding how 501c3 orgs are run, the legal requirements, and ducked and deflected every time he was asked specifically about the explicit "no firearms" (now "no weapons") wording.

Fail.

Then Tom interviewed the MarineParents lady, and she was completely cool with the firearms association -- going as far as to stipulate that vets, wounded and otherwise, tend to be "firearms enthusiasts." She cheerfully agreed that use of the logo would be fine.

Later on, a couple of callers wanted to stomp the WWP CEO, and Tom would have none of it, going so far as to defend the CEO's salary in the context of the amounts of money being handled by the organization.

He nipped the slander and personal attacks in the bud, and made it clear that his purpose was to bring forth the facts and express his opinion, not to tell others what to think or what to do with their money.

He made his point well.

The WWP CEO, on the other hand, did not. What became clear was that his "ROI" focus was more a function of not offending big donors by being seen to openly support guns, knives, and all things "weapons-related" than anything to do with paying lawyers and complying with regulations.

I wish them well, and hope they continue to do good things for wounded vets.

They will, however, be doing it without my money.

It's not like there's a shortage of charities available for helping the vets.

DammitBoy

November 19, 2012, 08:11 PM

I've read several comments about Vets and ptsd from folks who have no clue about the realities of the problem. The WWF spends 83% of the donations on programs benefitting Wounded Warriors. These troops are not remf, but combat wounded soldiers. The idea is to ease their transition back into civilian life. I suspect that few of you would part with a few bucks to help them anyway.

Coop, I'm going to be kind and assume that your low post count means you really don't know a lot of folks here real well and leave it at that.

I donated today to the Semper Fi Fund (http://www.semperfifund.org/) in my Father's honor, a WWII vet who resides in Arlington.

I encourage others to donate to the charity of their choice.

ConstitutionCowboy

November 19, 2012, 09:15 PM

WWP obviously has an anti-gun-rights agenda and has engaged in a popular cause in an attempt to give credence to its unpopular anti-gun(weapons) message. It doesn't matter how pretty the packaging. When you unwrap it and find a turd, you have a turd; and no turd has a clean end you can pick it up by.

I was listening intently to the interview Tom had with Mr Nardizzi, and Mr Nardizzi resorted to some rather obvious Delphi tactics such as his attempt to silence Tom with shame by inferring Tom was dissing the supposed "main and laudable function" of WWP. Tom's expert handling of Mr Nardizzi's ill advised and failed tactic exposed Mr Nardizzi for what his true agenda is - even to those who have no knowledge or recognition of Delphi tactics. (In these instances, if you smell a rat, it's likely you've been Delphi'd -- if not out-and-out lied to.)

Bruce "Woody" Wood

Apachedriver

November 19, 2012, 10:46 PM

It's too bad this is what it turned out to be with WWP. I've shared the outcomes with other friends and needless to say, we'll be sending our dollars and friends elsewhere.

If Wounded Warriors does not want anything to do with guns.... Why Is Legacy making a 1911 and donating money from each sale to the WWP?

Redlg155

November 20, 2012, 05:51 AM

I'm sorry, but I''ve got some heartburn with the CEO compensation of $319 k a year.

ConstitutionCowboy

November 20, 2012, 10:14 AM

Crazy-mp, how about a link. You'd think if this were the case, WWP would proudly boast of such an alliance with Legacy and dispel the claims of WWP being anti-gun-rights.

Woody

CoRoMo

November 20, 2012, 10:21 AM

...how about a link.
http://www.legacysports.com/products/cit_m1911.html

You'll see the big black 1911 in the center of that page and just below it is a row of tabs. Second tab from the left is their Wounded Warrior Project info.
$25.00 from each Wounded Warrior model sold will be
donated to the Wounded Warrior Project to aid injured,
returning veterans. Legacy Sports International has
been an avid supporter of WWP for the past three
years, donating over $20,000.00 to help wounded vets
and their families.
http://www.legacysports.com/images/products/CIT_M1911_WW.png
Also...

http://www.galleryofguns.com/genie/default.aspx?item=CIT45FSPWWP

http://www.galleryofguns.com//prod_images/CIT45FSPWWP.JPG

SSN Vet

November 20, 2012, 01:57 PM

They will, however, be doing it without my money.

Ditto!

Tom Gresham

November 20, 2012, 03:00 PM

My understanding is that WWP did, in fact, enter into arrangements to allow the use of its logo on guns. It changed that policy a couple of years ago, and says it absolutely (the exact word the CEO used on the radio) will not allow that now.

I'm guessing that the Legacy guns are from an earlier deal.

ArfinGreebly

November 20, 2012, 03:15 PM

Tom's right.

The other quote was something like, "we used to do that, but we've quit licensing our logo for weapons."

I'd have to go back and listen again for an accurate quote.

Coop45

November 20, 2012, 05:01 PM

How ironic.
You chide folks who "have no clue" about vets and PTSD, and yet, you're suspecting they won't donate their money to help the vets. Do you have a clue about how these folks spent their money?
As said already, there are plenty of other vets organizations out there to be helped. WWP is not the only game in town. I used to be a frequent donor to them. No longer, after all this crap. I choose how to donate my money. You do the same with yours.

I thought the irony was after 40+ years I still feel the us against them when it comes to these young warriors. There is no way that we are going to stand for another 1970.

ArfinGreebly

November 20, 2012, 06:03 PM

I thought the irony was after 40+ years I still feel the us against them when it comes to these young warriors. There is no way that we are going to stand for another 1970.

As the nice lady said on Tom's program, the majority of vets tend to be -- in her experience -- firearms enthusiasts.

So, the "us and them" to which you refer is really about a different "them."

"Them" is people who believe vets -- largely a body of firearms enthusiasts -- should have less exposure to firearms. "Them" is people who view firearms as "potentially troublesome" in the rehabilitation of vets. "Them" is people who seek to label vets as "suffering from PTSD" as a disqualifier from gun ownership.

"Them" is people who genuinely fear the concept of an armed military vet, and seek to use "medical obfuscation speak" to marginalize them as much as possible.

That's the current "them" in the "us and them" oppositional alignment.

As it happens, firearms are therapeutic, and shooting or hunting is great therapy.

Anything that improves a person's control of his environment, extends his reach out into that environment, and allows him to create an effect at some distance in the environment is going to be good therapy. Shooting does that. Hunting does that.

Shooting extroverts a person. Extroversion is good.

Quizzing a man about his "feelings" and framing him as a victim introverts him. Introversion is bad.

I will have no truck with any organization that seeks to "protect" veterans from firearms or any other weapon.

Take your recovering vet, give him a gun to clean, a target to shoot, some game to hunt, and give him back some control of his life.

Don't swaddle him in bubble wrap and Nerf foam.

And, for gawd's sake, quit asking him "how does that make you feel?" Quit trying to "medicate" him back to normal. It doesn't work.

There are better ways. And shooting is one of them.

RTR_RTR

November 20, 2012, 07:04 PM

Arfin,

I feel you're overgeneralizing the benefits of shooting and making unfair characterizations of therapy.

I agree that activities that promote socialization are beneficial - if shooting is an activity that a vet enjoys, it would generally be reasonable to encourage participation (with select and transient restriction in certain populations). I strongly disagree, however, that therapy and medication are unhelpful (particularly so for therapy, which has an exceedingly strong evidence-base). If you're willing to critically read primary literature on the matter, I'd be happy to cite several relevant articles. If you feel it's just "medical obfuscation," I won't bother.

Does every vet need therapy or medication? Hell no, but to deny the benefits of those for any and all vets is asinine.

DammitBoy

November 20, 2012, 07:08 PM

I thought the irony was after 40+ years I still feel the us against them when it comes to these young warriors. There is no way that we are going to stand for another 1970.

Why are you confusing criticism of the people who are running a charity with the soldiers who are supposed to be benefiting from the charity?

No one here has disparaged a soldier of any sort, let alone those wounded in battle.

1 old 0311-1

November 20, 2012, 07:19 PM

I am a 100% disabled Marine AND I want nothing to do with WWP.

ArfinGreebly

November 20, 2012, 08:13 PM

Arfin,

I feel you're overgeneralizing the benefits of shooting and making unfair characterizations of therapy.

I agree that activities that promote socialization are beneficial - if shooting is an activity that a vet enjoys, it would generally be reasonable to encourage participation (with select and transient restriction in certain populations). I strongly disagree, however, that therapy and medication are unhelpful (particularly so for therapy, which has an exceedingly strong evidence-base). If you're willing to critically read primary literature on the matter, I'd be happy to cite several relevant articles. If you feel it's just "medical obfuscation," I won't bother.

Does every vet need therapy or medication? Hell no, but to deny the benefits of those for any and all vets is asinine.

Unfair characterizations? As you wish. That's a discussion for another time and place. My field work in rehab and education informs my opinions, in concert with my observations of "treatments" and their outcomes.

My characterization may be somewhat harsh, but it's not drawn from ignorance.

Overgeneralizing the benefits of shooting? Certainly shooting isn't the only activity that has direct benefits, but it's certainly one of them, and a discussion of the full spectrum of others would be out of scope here.

Shooting is good medicine. It's not the only alternative, but it's sure enough a good thing.

jluther820

November 21, 2012, 02:12 AM

Listen to the podcast.
After listening to the latest podcast from Tom Gresham, I am convinced that that CEO was spinning a big fat bunch of lies and smokescreens...

Here is the letter I sent to T.G.

You are missing something important on the wounded warrior thing. I am a CPA, and the first thing I thought when you started talking about this issue is that You need to take a look at their tax returns, they are public information and will tell you a lot about their activities.

The CEO told you that as an example of other areas they wont be associated with, they wont do cycling, however in the latest tax return they spent 4.6 Million Dollars on a cycling program called "SOLDIER RIDE - SOLDIER RIDE PROVIDES ADAPTIVE CYCLING OPPORTUNITIES"
You can review their tax returns on their own website, look at the middle of page 2 of the 2010-2011 Form 990 Tax return.
http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/media/161826/wwp_990_final_2010-2011.pdf

The rest of them are available here.
http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/mission/financials.aspx

Also, this is not a co-branding issue. if you read the statement from their website carefully, it says they will not take money from weapons companies, the term co-brand is given in a list of things they wont do.

"WWP does not co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds from companies in which the product or message is sexual, political or religious in nature, or from alcohol or weapon companies."

Let me rephrase what they are saying:
"WWP does not receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds from weapon companies."

I think if you read it carefully, it is worse than you are saying, don't let them blame it on this smoke screen issue of "co-branding", they are clearly lying.

I appreciate that you are encouraging your listeners to make their own decision and to continue their support of our warriors, but I thought this information / clarification would be useful to your listeners.
Thank you
JL

Tom - to this I would add. Obviously they will be two faced and accept a quiet cash donation from anyone with a checkbook. As you pointed out the CEO of a certain sized company needs to be paid a certain amount... So the more donations WWP receives, the more this guy gets paid. Look at the tax returns, those 6-figure bonus payments were probably based on meeting revenue goals.

Coop45

November 21, 2012, 10:50 AM

As the nice lady said on Tom's program, the majority of vets tend to be -- in her experience -- firearms enthusiasts.

So, the "us and them" to which you refer is really about a different "them."

"Them" is people who believe vets -- largely a body of firearms enthusiasts -- should have less exposure to firearms. "Them" is people who view firearms as "potentially troublesome" in the rehabilitation of vets. "Them" is people who seek to label vets as "suffering from PTSD" as a disqualifier from gun ownership.

"Them" is people who genuinely fear the concept of an armed military vet, and seek to use "medical obfuscation speak" to marginalize them as much as possible.

That's the current "them" in the "us and them" oppositional alignment.

As it happens, firearms are therapeutic, and shooting or hunting is great therapy.

Anything that improves a person's control of his environment, extends his reach out into that environment, and allows him to create an effect at some distance in the environment is going to be good therapy. Shooting does that. Hunting does that.

Shooting extroverts a person. Extroversion is good.

Quizzing a man about his "feelings" and framing him as a victim introverts him. Introversion is bad.

I will have no truck with any organization that seeks to "protect" veterans from firearms or any other weapon.

Take your recovering vet, give him a gun to clean, a target to shoot, some game to hunt, and give him back some control of his life.

Don't swaddle him in bubble wrap and Nerf foam.

And, for gawd's sake, quit asking him "how does that make you feel?" Quit trying to "medicate" him back to normal. It doesn't work.

There are better ways. And shooting is one of them.

Judging by the number of WWF hunts, they are doing exactly what you say is needed. I agree that hunting and shooting is a great way to transition. My fear is that the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater. Sorry about the cliche, but these young men and women are more important than politics.

wtr100

November 21, 2012, 10:59 AM

Response to an e-mail I sent WWP, however after listening to the head honcho on Mr Gresham's show I can only conclude my support is neither wanted nor warranted.

Dear Phil,

We appreciate your concern regarding this matter. First, these questions arose as a result of a miscommunicated message when declining an opportunity for WWP to appear on Gun Talk Radio. This mistake has unfortunately led some people to question our support of the 2nd Amendment.

Please know WWP wholeheartedly supports the Constitution of the United States of America, which includes the Second Amendment. We recognize these are the freedoms our Alumni fought and sacrificed to protect!

WWP has a long history of facilitating therapeutic hunting and outdoor opportunities for Wounded Warriors as well as fundraising activities that involve firearms.

Thank you for your support of Wounded Warrior Project as we continue to honor and empower wounded warriors.

There is a "miscommunicated message" alright. It is on the WWP FAQ page...

Tom Gresham

November 23, 2012, 07:59 AM

I wrote what I consider a "wrap-up" on this, and it was published on The Shooting Wire last Wednesday. http://www.shootingwire.com/features/226802

I didn't want this conflict, but once it became obvious what WWP was doing, there was no backing away from it. Here's what I wrote.

---------

Self Inflicted Wound?

Does the Wounded Warrior Project (WWP) have a bias against guns and gun makers? Two weeks ago that would have sounded crazy, but this week many shooters are convinced that it's true. Hundreds of hunts and shoots are held as fundraisers for the WWP, and gun companies donate to WWP for its projects. How could it be that this $185 million (2013 projected revenue) outfit could be anti-gun?

It started with a simple invitation -- I wanted someone from the Wounded Warrior Project to join me for the Veteran's Day episode of my national radio show, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk. I had no idea it would turn into a national dustup which now has the gun rights community in a turmoil -- so much so that people are burning their Wounded Warrior Project shirts.

We were disappointed when the Leslie Coleman, PR director for WWP, said they couldn't come on the show, but that happens. Schedules don't mesh, things happen, but that's not uncommon. No big deal. Except that Ms. Coleman said they were declining because we "are related to firearms."

"While we appreciate the interest in having a WWP representative on your show on Veterans Day we are not able to participate in interviews or activities with media/organizations that are related to firearms," said Ms. Coleman in her email.

That really rocked us because we knew of all the firearms-related activities used to raise money for WWP. I asked for clarification, and Coleman reconfirmed their position. That Sunday I talked about it on the air and sent out a tweet (@guntalk) with the information. Some doubted that I had reported it correctly, so we posted the entire email exchange on our Facebook page. http://www.facebook.com/notes/gun-talk/wounded-warrior-project-email-exchange/10151354082553313

That lit the fuse, and hundreds (if not thousands) of gun rights supporters contacted WWP for clarification. The response was . . . a bit bland. Mostly it was along the lines of "We support the Second Amendment . . .," but the WWP web site specifically called out the firearms industry as one it would not "co-brand" with. That is, it would not allow the use of its logo on guns (and it turns out, on knives, either.) The other industries it won't co-brand with? Alcohol and sex.

Coleman's explanation that guns are used in suicides, and suicide is a big issue for returning vets, set off a firestorm of response. WWP quietly started making changes to its web site, removing mention of firearms, or changing it to "weapons." Online firearms boards documented the changes, posting the before and after. The pressure mounted on WWP.

By midweek, with the help of the Professional Outdoor Media Association, WWP offered to put its CEO, Steve Nardizzi, on Gun Talk Radio to explain what they now called a big misunderstanding that had been blown out of proportion. I welcomed the chance to clear up this mess, which no one wanted. I hoped that Nardizzi would announce a change in the policy.

He didn't. Once on the air, he said they support the Second Amendment (which really did remind me of when President Obama starts a sentence that way), and that they participate in hunts and shoots as fund raisers. Yes, we knew that. But what of the policy blocking the use of the WWP logo on guns? In fact, the policy prohibits the use of the logo at fundraisers where there is shooting, though that seems to be flexible.

No, he said, they would not "co-brand" with firearms or knives. The return on investment just wasn't there, he explained. I asked why they would turn down the money from such a program when it didn't interfere with their larger projects (ketchup, clothing, etc.), and he explained that co-branding requires much internal coordination with lawyers, PR people, and others to manage it, and that I wouldn't understand it. Hmmm.

What if we offered to cover all their internal expenses, and then co-brand (use their logo on guns and knives) as a way to contribute to WWP, I asked. Would that be okay? I never got a straight answer to that.

There was much back and forth, with it quickly taking on the feeling of dealing with a politician who has to be there, but who doesn't really want to answer the questions. To get the full flavor of the interview, you can download it or listen online. http://tinyurl.com/cugy6ft

Nardizzi even went on the offensive, saying he can't believe we would withhold donations from wounded vets because we don't get anything out of it (use of the logo). This feigned indignation didn't fly. I explained that we have many avenues for donating to our veterans -- WWP is only one of many -- and that just because someone decides not to support a group which he thinks has taken an anti-gun stand doesn't mean that person isn't going to continue to contribute -- just to other groups.

Having been in the gun rights fight since before the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, I've seen a lot of changes. For decades I've said this fight really is a struggle for public opinion. We have made great strides. Forty years ago a majority of the U.S. population thought that handguns should be severely restricted. That's not the case now. Through education and exposure the public recognize gun owners as "normal" people just like them. This is huge.

On the other hand, there is a major push to demonize and marginalize gun owners, gun makers, and the shooting sports. It is in this light that I see the WWP policy of prohibiting gun and knife makers from using the WWP logo. What are they telling the world?

Take the longer view. Ebay blocked firearms from being listed. Paypal blocks the use of its service for buying guns. Google blocks guns, dealers and makers from searches in its shopping service. We have reports of banks closing the accounts of gun makers simply on the basis that they won't do business with the firearms industry.

Each of these is a very public way of saying "We don't do business with 'those people'." Each is a way of saying that reasonable and responsible people should have nothing to do with the firearms business. We are being put into the same box as pornography.

Sure, the Wounded Warrior Project is only too happy to take our money. They "allow" shoots and hunts as fundraisers, but they don't want their logo associated with us. They are saying in a very public way that they refuse to be associated with us.

Some have suggested that there is pressure from the board, from big donors, or from elsewhere, to prevent the use of the WWP logo on "weapons." Honestly, I don't know and don't care. I just know it to be a continuation of the demonization of firearms, the firearms industry, and those who use guns responsibly.

There is no doubt that the WWP does good work. That's why I'm left disgusted and sad at this whole affair. But I know that we never win when we shrug and put up with this kind of treatment.

Throughout last week we continued to hear from people and groups which have been rebuffed by WWP because the groups were involved in firearms. One significant donation from a company in our industry was returned because it came though a faith-based foundation.

One element of this rather sad tale has been gratifying. The firearms community responded instantly to this with questions and pressure -- so much so that WWP recognized they had to go public to answer the charges. The connectivity of the gun rights movement through the internet made that possible. It has changed the game.

I had hoped that WWP would come to its senses. Once it became clear that the policy would not change, many identified and donated to other groups which help vets, and which are only too happy to be associated with guns, hunting and shooting. Last Sunday I had someone from marineparents.com on the radio show. Each week for the rest of the year, we'll have various groups which help wounded veterans on the radio to help them get additional exposure.

On Gun Talk Radio I created a "No Shrug" policy. We will always speak up. No longer will we just shrug when faced with a distorted media report about guns. No longer will we just go about our business when a politician makes outrageous claims about gun owners. No longer will we continue to give money to, or do business with, any outfit which in any way labels us as "undesirables." To shrug and just go on is to not just accept the demonization, but it actually agrees with it and supports it.

No longer.

---- Tom Gresham

scaatylobo

November 23, 2012, 09:07 AM

I saw what the CEO made as a salary - way over the top for ANY non profit.

And I vote solid 2 nd Amendment and that is how I spend too.

Looks like they are not getting any of my charity scoots.

ConstitutionCowboy

November 23, 2012, 11:18 AM

Well said, Tom, and thank you for your steadfast position. You are not alone in this, but to hear the truth from people with a national voice such as yourself is inspiring. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck got nothin' on you!

Bruce "Woody" Wood

jluther820

November 23, 2012, 12:06 PM

Good summary Tom, but I think you are letting them off easy by focusing on on the co-branding issue. Their objection is not just to putting their logo on a gun or knife.

if you read the statement from their website carefully, it says they will not take money from weapons companies, the term co-brand is given in a list of things they wont do with undesirables.

"WWP does not co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds from companies in which the product or message is sexual, political or religious in nature, or from alcohol or weapon companies."

what they are saying:
"WWP does not do x,y,or z with weapon companies." If you read it carefully, you will more offended than ou are now...

Hypnogator

November 23, 2012, 12:47 PM

I have grave reservations about supporting an organization that is, essentially, becoming a for-profit charity, with more than a third of their income going for advertising, and a substantial amount going to pay lavish salaries for the founder and members of his family. :uhoh::scrutiny:

The best perspective I've seen in print on the Wounded Warrior controversy is the CTD Blog here: http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=32314

grubbylabs

November 23, 2012, 04:24 PM

As you can guess from my screen name here I have labs, I happen to have some higher end labs that we sell for quite a bit of money because of breeding, health, and hunting clearances. We take a lot of pride in our dogs and the new owners generally do as well. A few years ago I tried to donate one to a wounded vet (emotionally or physically) and it was a nightmare to get some one to go along with it. Finally I got our state chapter of Ducks unlimited to set something up and it was a really nice experience. However I have not been able to get it to happen again since.

I know I could probably go down to the local base or reserve unit and give one a way, but there is a little more to it than that. I want it to go to someone who really needs the dog, for hunting or just to have a companion. I don't have the resources to work with the medical facilities to get a good match. Taking on a dog is a big responsibility and I don't want it to be a bad experience for the dog or the vet.

Well any way I have been waiting for a reply from a some what local WWP staff member who herd that I am looking to donate another pup. Now I am rethinking going through them. If any one else has any suggestions or ideas I am open.

Dave Workman

November 23, 2012, 06:54 PM

Ladies and Gents:

I'm probably going to do another follow-up Examiner column on this subject, based in some part on many of the things said here.

Tom and I are pals, and I had the chance to speak with the EVP of communications down there at WWP, as I wrote the other day (http://www.examiner.com/article/wounded-warrior-flap-a-misunderstanding-blown-out-of-proportion-says-official)

I also listened to Tom's interview with that guy.

Davek1977

November 28, 2012, 07:00 AM

Sorry about the cliche, but these young men and women are more important than politics.

That IS cliche, and nothing more.....no one is saying not to support our wounded warriors. Wounded Warriors....as an organization....made the policies we are discussing. I see no harm in allowing people to know the hypocrisy they've showcased. Its one think to refuse to help our wounded service members, and another to hold a charity responsible for their own guidelines. Refusing to support a group with a somewhat hypocritical view of guns and gun ownership isn't being political...its holding true to one's beliefs. There are a ton of vet groups out there one can dontate to aside from WW. I feel NO obligation to support them with the information that has come to light

hso

November 28, 2012, 02:13 PM

WWP does not co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds from companies in which the product or message is sexual, political or religious in nature, or from alcohol or weapon companies

Any middle school teacher would easily analyze their statement as saying they won't take money from weapon companies. The participation in co-branding or marketing campaigns is simply other activities they will not involve themselves in.

While I pointed out it is risky to be seen as attacking an organization that supports wounded vets, it is not the same as attacking the support to wounded vets itself. It is not attacking wounded vets to attack a charity that dedicates too small a percentage to programs directly helping vets. We've seen charities outed for putting the bulk of raised funds into salaries and bonuses or charities that misrepresent themselves or charities that take social and political positions outside of their purported focus. We certainly aren't attacking the people a charity claims to focus their efforts on when the management of the charity decides to manage the charity outside of the best interest of those wounded vets they market themselves as serving. In this case the Wounded Warrior Project's management has taken a position with respect to the firearms industry rejecting that industry as a matter of policy while accepting donations from the industry and affiliated groups. The management of the Wounded Warrior Project deserves the criticism and controversy generated by their having taken this position. That it impacts the charity itself or the charities ability to perform their advertised mission is unfortunate, but the replacement of the management team that decided to take this position is what is needed so the charity can dedicate itself to the people they are supposed to serve instead of using those vets to further an agenda that isn't consistent with their needs.

sawdeanz

November 28, 2012, 04:37 PM

I always knew I could count on the high road to inform me of anti-gun companies and get to the bottom of things!

vito

November 28, 2012, 05:19 PM

As a Vietnam war vet I have great respect and sympathy for our wounded warriors, and have been supporting the WWP for a few years now. Although the other WWP thread has been closed, I am not sure if I want to continue supporting them or not, but going to the website I can't figure out how I would get them to stop charging the monthly fee to my credit card. Anyone else gone through this, and successfully discontinued the monthly sponsorship?

grubbylabs

November 28, 2012, 05:30 PM

Call your credit card company/bank. They can help you stop the payments.

Can any one provide links to the many other organizations that take donations and help wounded vets?

wannabeagunsmith

November 28, 2012, 05:54 PM

Yeah, it feels terrible to do, but I guess we have no other choice but to end support. Is there anywhere else, pro-2A that we can donate to?

vito

November 28, 2012, 07:18 PM

Someone earlier on this or a related thread stated that the WWP only uses 15% of the funds donated to actually help veterans, a number which if true would show this organization to be a very disruptable charity. I spent a few minutes looking at websites that evaluate charities and this is what I found:
Website ----------------------------%of funds for programs
Better Business Bureau------------------83%
Military Money Matters------------------65%
Charity Navigator-----------------------55%

Apparently a score of 80% or higher is considered very good, and while two of the three sites I looked at have them below 80%, it is nowhere as low as 15%. Now this has nothing to do with the issue of their policy toward firearm companies, and only is a measure of how much of their raised funds goes to programs that are aimed at helping wounded verterans. If you have other data that is different from what I found, I would be open to looking at that as well.

basicblur

November 29, 2012, 12:52 AM

Apparently a score of 80% or higher is considered very good, and while two of the three sites I looked at have them below 80%, it is nowhere as low as 15%
Methinks you're confusing 'rating' with the percentage of money that looks like it's actually going directly to Vets - if you look at their financials, a BIG chunk of their income goes to advertising, salaries, yadda yadda yadda. The 15% block of income seems to be what is actually making it to the Vets (don't remember which charity rating site where I saw that figure).

Personally, I pay no attention to the BBB rating - the fact that they rate it so much higher than other agencies simply reinforces what I think of the BBB...

At the Charity Navigator site, WWP is the lowest rated of the similar charities listed at the bottom of the page.

12131

November 29, 2012, 01:06 AM

Can any one provide links to the many other organizations that take donations and help wounded vets?
Here are some,
http://www.dav.org/
http://www.marineparents.com/
http://semperfifund.org/about/
http://www.pva.org/site/c.ajIRK9NJLcJ2E/b.6305401/k.BCBB/Home.htm